Frida MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it requires device connectivity. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. The parenthetical note adds useful context without verbosity. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, with no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral aspects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable tool use in a complex Frida ecosystem.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the two parameters (device_id and device_type), their purposes, or how they affect the listing. Without this, the agent lacks context for proper invocation, failing to address the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all installed applications') and target resource ('on a device'), with a helpful note about mobile device relevance. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like frida_list_processes or frida_list_modules by specifying applications, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions mobile devices as 'useful' but doesn't specify if it's exclusive to them, required prerequisites, or when to choose other listing tools like frida_list_processes. This leaves the agent without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.